• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Papa bull said:
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

And this is all it is, really. "We don't want it."

Conservatives only support the individual liberty they personally desire. Any other kind of individual liberty is ok to suppress, even when that choice has no negative consequences for others. Pure selfishness, only what they want is the "right kind" of freedom.

Liberals, on the other hand, support individual liberty if that choice causes no harm to others, and if that choice does cause harm to others, we feel it can be reasonable to restrict that liberty.

Your reasoning works for a six year old, but don't pretend it's in line with real American values.
 
Deuce said:
You heard it here folks: all heterosexual married couples are dodging taxes.
Click to expand...

Learn to read. It's a tax benefit for couples that meet the requirements and apply for state sanction. It's a dodge for those that aren't complying with the state's requirements but want that benefit, anyway. Homosexual marriage serves no useful purpose my state. If your state has a different perspective, that's your state's business.
 
Papa bull said:
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

its weird that you ignore the MILLIONS of people on the right that support equal rights LOL
also your state and people do not get to infringe on rights, try reading the constitution or reading some of the rulings lol

the bigots and or people against equal rights in your state will simply have to deal with the fact its not their decision nor was it ever, thats what being fixed :D
 
Deuce said:
And this is all it is, really. "We don't want it."
Click to expand...

And that's enough. The state shouldn't have to sanction relationships that it doesn't want to sanction. It doesn't have to endorse homosexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
Learn to read. It's a tax benefit for couples that meet the requirements and apply for state sanction. It's a dodge for those that aren't complying with the state's requirements but want that benefit, anyway. Homosexual marriage serves no useful purpose my state. If your state has a different perspective, that's your state's business.
Click to expand...

no matter how many times you repeat it, its not a state issue :shrug:
 
Papa bull said:
Learn to read. It's a tax benefit for couples that meet the requirements and apply for state sanction. It's a dodge for those that aren't complying with the state's requirements but want that benefit, anyway. Homosexual marriage serves no useful purpose my state. If your state has a different perspective, that's your state's business.
Click to expand...

"Homosexual marriage is a tax dodge, but heterosexual marriage isn't because I like it."

Why do you want to redistribute wealth from homosexual couples to heterosexual couples?
 
AGENT J said:
its weird that you ignore the MILLIONS of people on the right that support equal rights LOL
also your state and people do not get to infringe on rights, try reading the constitution or reading some of the rulings lol

the bigots and or people against equal rights in your state will simply have to deal with the fact its not their decision nor was it ever, thats what being fixed :D
Click to expand...

It was always the state's decision. And hopefully, it will continue to be forever, but it's not looking that way. State's rights are being eroded very quickly and to the detriment of this country, as a whole.
 
Papa bull said:
And that's enough. The state shouldn't have to sanction relationships that it doesn't want to sanction. It doesn't have to endorse homosexuality.
Click to expand...

nope not enough

see women's rights, see minority rights, see interracial marriage

facts prove your wants and feelings are not enough to trample others rights lol
 
Papa bull said:
It was always the state's decision. And hopefully, it will continue to be forever, but it's not looking that way. State's rights are being eroded very quickly and to the detriment of this country, as a whole.
Click to expand...

court cases and the constitution proves you wrong, what do you have on your side again?
 
Papa bull said:
And that's enough. The state shouldn't have to sanction relationships that it doesn't want to sanction. It doesn't have to endorse homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Like I said, right-wing rhetoric about individual liberty is pure bull****. You people support the freedom to suppress other peoples' freedom.
 
Papa bull said:
We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

Luckily that is not how civil rights work, civil rights are there for everybody, not just those belonging to your conservative ilk.
 
Papa bull said:
State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues. Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.
Click to expand...

So you want to get rid of tax benefits for heterosexual married people too then? After all, marriage is just a tax dodge for straight people, right?
 
Deuce said:
Like I said, right-wing rhetoric about individual liberty is pure bull****. You people support the freedom to suppress other peoples' freedom.
Click to expand...

Whether the state does or does not endorse homosexual marriages has no bearing on your freedom. Freedom has nothing to do with something others have to give you and state sanctioned marriage is a concession from the state and it's no restriction of your freedom if you don't have it. Anyone that considers not being married to be a restriction of their freedom is a little nuts, anyway.
 
Cephus said:
So you want to get rid of tax benefits for heterosexual married people too then? After all, marriage is just a tax dodge for straight people, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think the state has the right to create tax benefits for relationships that it wants to encourage without being forced to give that incentive to relationships it doesn't not want to endorse. Our state doesn't see the point in endorsing homosexual marriage and giving incentives to promote them, so it doesn't.
 
Papa bull said:
Not at all. I think the state has the right to create tax benefits for relationships that it wants to encourage without being forced to give that incentive to relationships it doesn't not want to endorse. Our state doesn't see the point in endorsing homosexual marriage and giving incentives to promote them, so it doesn't.
Click to expand...

So you'd be good with, say, white heterosexuals getting tax benefits and black heterosexuals not getting tax benefits? After all, in some areas of the country, that might be what the people in the state might want. :roll:
 
Cephus said:
So you'd be good with, say, white heterosexuals getting tax benefits and black heterosexuals not getting tax benefits? After all, in some areas of the country, that might be what the people in the state might want. :roll:
Click to expand...

The "homosexuality is a race" argument fails supremely.
 
Deuce said:
Like I said, right-wing rhetoric about individual liberty is pure bull****. You people support the freedom to suppress other peoples' freedom.
Click to expand...

What freedom? Gays could already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, they didnt even just want the govt benefits of marriage under a different name (civil union) they wanted to destroy the religious meaning of marriage. Gay marriage is about religious bigotry. If it was the gay civil union movement yall could have won that decades ago.
 
Papa bull said:
The "homosexuality is a race" argument fails supremely.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. You've just dodged the question, as expected.
 
Crovax said:
What freedom? Gays could already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, they didnt even just want the govt benefits of marriage under a different name (civil union) they wanted to destroy the religious meaning of marriage. Gay marriage is about religious bigotry. If it was the gay civil union movement yall could have won that decades ago.
Click to expand...

Marriage in this conversation is very much a state (and thus secular) concern. There is no plausible argument for religious bigotry. Just religious butthurt.
 
Cephus said:
Which, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. You've just dodged the question, as expected.
Click to expand...

I just cut to the chase. I know this argument. Try to pretend that denying homosexuals state sanction of their marriage is like denying otherwise normal heterosexual couples from marrying because one of them isn't the "right" race. It's not a racial issue. Forbidding marriage among interracial couples that are in every other way qualified to be married just because they're not both the same race is not constitutional. I don't find the "race" angle to be useful at all for proponents of homosexual marriage.
 
Sherman123 said:
Marriage in this conversation is very much a state (and thus secular) concern. There is no plausible argument for religious bigotry. Just religious butthurt.
Click to expand...

The word marriage has religious connotations that is why the gays refused to accept civil unions. The act and benefits might be secular but the gays dont want that they want the word
 
Papa bull said:
I just cut to the chase. I know this argument. Try to pretend that denying homosexuals state sanction of their marriage is like denying otherwise normal heterosexual couples from marrying because one of them isn't the "right" race. It's not a racial issue. Forbidding marriage among interracial couples that are in every other way qualified to be married just because they're not both the same race is not constitutional. I don't find the "race" angle to be useful at all for proponents of homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Youll have to forgive them they have been playing the race card so long its now the only move they have. Like Seth Rogan in knocked up doing the dice roll you just gotta let em do it its the only move hes got.
 
Papa bull said:
I just cut to the chase. I know this argument. Try to pretend that denying homosexuals state sanction of their marriage is like denying otherwise normal heterosexual couples from marrying because one of them isn't the "right" race. It's not a racial issue. Forbidding marriage among interracial couples that are in every other way qualified to be married just because they're not both the same race is not constitutional. I don't find the "race" angle to be useful at all for proponents of homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't find the religious angle to be useful, or intelligent, either. That doesn't stop you and your ilk.
 
Crovax said:
The word marriage has religious connotations that is why the gays refused to accept civil unions. The act and benefits might be secular but the gays dont want that they want the word
Click to expand...

I think you're right on point, actually.

I think the real reason why homosexuals are demanding homosexual marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights because they already have equal rights. They are pursuing the homosexual marriage agenda for two primary reasons.

1. To poke a stick in the eye of Christians and Christianity
2. To be able to say that homosexuality is normal

Civil Unions wouldn't do those two things even if they conveyed every benefit that marriage does to homosexual couples. Therefore, civil unions were unacceptable. It had nothing at all to do with rights. This issue has been driven by homosexual militants. Most homosexuals I've know have had no interest in marriage for the sake of marriage. Many have told me that their homosexual lifestyle was about eschewing the "normal" model of marriage and kids.

What the long term consequences will be, no one knows because no society that endorsed homosexuality has stood the test of time and so we have no example to take a lesson from. But I think it's clear to see that in our country, the homosexuals will prevail. How it changes society in this country is something we can only guess about.
 
Crovax said:
What freedom? Gays could already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, they didnt even just want the govt benefits of marriage under a different name (civil union) they wanted to destroy the religious meaning of marriage. Gay marriage is about religious bigotry. If it was the gay civil union movement yall could have won that decades ago.
Click to expand...
First, bull****. You people put up constitutional amendments against civil unions also. Every single time civil unions have come up for a vote, people turn out in droves against it. Second, civil unions have absolutely never been equal to marriages. You people have never actually once managed to offer up real equality in civil unions.

As for religious bigotry, no. Someone else getting married despite your disapproval is not bigoted against you. Their marriage does not affect you. Their marriage doesn't redefine your marriage. You won't love your wife less. You won't love your children less. Society will not view your marriage differently. God will not view your marriage differently. Stop thinking this is about you. It's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom